A bigger ground must be a good thing for the club and my only reservation would be making the new capacity only 55,000. Surely 60,000 would be more appropriate.

In response to councillor Kenny and his continued objections. The Anfield area will be significantly regenerated. Much of the local business also relies on LFC and EFC-related revenue. Maybe we should give counciller Kenny his way and go to Speke. It would be interesting to see what happens to the local area then.

As regards Stanley Park, it is in such a state of dis-repair that a new stadium and facilities can only be an improvement. Mr Kenny, find something else to whinge about and let the Anfield area prosper.

Rob WIlliams (via e-mail)

Full capacity>

EVERYONE has missed the point regarding the Reds moving to a 55,000-seater stadium.

Anfield cannot be extended any further, whereas this new 55,000 seater will have the capacity to be extended, increasing the capacity to this holy grail of 70,000, if required.

Meanwhile, by building a stadium for 55,000 the funds for Gerard Houllier to keep strenghtening his squad will not be diminished.

J Saggers, Liverpool

Why move?>

WHY are Liverpool moving?

Initially it was said the current ground could only be increased to 55,000 and we needed between 60,000-70,000 to compete with United and Arsenal.

So why throw away our heritage for a similar capacity that can be achieved on our hallowed home?

It may only be into Stanley Park, but it may as well be Central Park in New York. United developed Old Trafford and we should do the same.

Teams with new grounds have not been successful. Derby and Leicester are in decline, Sunderland are on the way down and Southampton have lost the 'Dell' factor that has preserved their Premiership lives for so long. Middlesbrough might be buoyant at present but for how long. Don't change for change's sake.

The local residents needed consulting, but what about the fans also. Do we really want to move?